The Chronicle's story today on the ongoing furor over Ann Coulter and the 'F-word', reports that the backlash includes a campaign initiated today by a gay rights group and media watchdog to persuade mainstream media outlets to dump her for good.

Taking a leaf from HRC's book, should other organizations petition to take Bill Maher off of HBO because of his off-color remarks on the possible untimely death of Dick Cheney. That happened to Maher once before, when "Politically Incorrect" was summarily dispatched from ABC after he made comments perceived to be politically incorrect about Al Qaeda.

So, how far might, or should, this erosion of offensive speech go?

Is there a difference between activist organizations pushing to boot Ann Coulter off the air, and, say, the government of Turkey banning You Tube because of perceived undignified references to Kamal Attaturk (since lifted by a Turkish court). Or schools and libraries banning literature considered "dangerous." Or New York City banning the "N-word", no matter how much it is part of the vernacular (as is the "F-word"). Or, for that matter, Europe criminalizing Holocaust denial.

All terribly offensive, of course, but so are Klan marches, and neo-Nazi marches through Skokie, which the ACLU defended

First Schlesinger now Coulter. It seems the conservative white women are the only ones willing to risk anything to stop the homo/race pimp/liberal agenda. Why are white men so unwilling to do what they have done?

This has nothing to do with Free Speech. Coulter isn't being prosecuted by the government. She has the right to say what she wants, and others have the right to complain, boycott, or whatever. It wasn't a Free Speech issue when Freepers boycotted the Dixie Chicks, and it isn't a Free Speech issue now.

I'm neither attacking nor defending Coulter. All my post did was point out how the Human Rights Campaigns of the world that are so intent on silencing Coulter are the same people who are horrified by the "censoring" of the Dixie Chicks.

Literacy is a valuable skill.

17
posted on 03/09/2007 1:15:17 PM PST
by denydenydeny
("We have always been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France"--Wellington)

"This has nothing to do with Free Speech. Coulter isn't being prosecuted by the government. She has the right to say what she wants, and others have the right to complain, boycott, or whatever. It wasn't a Free Speech issue when Freepers boycotted the Dixie Chicks, and it isn't a Free Speech issue now."

I'll tell you what is a problem though, and that's the media jumping on the bandwagon and using their power to attack Coulter. The media still have influence, and they still use it for evil.

22
posted on 03/09/2007 1:19:27 PM PST
by dsc
(There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. Edmund Burke)

"First Schlesinger now Coulter. It seems the conservative white women are the only ones willing to risk anything to stop the homo/race pimp/liberal agenda. Why are white men so unwilling to do what they have done?"

That is my point as well. If Bush/Frist/Hastert et.al. had half the spine of these two ladies, we wouldn't have lost the last election. Reid and Pelosi don't hold back, nor any of the Dems.

I seem to remember he (Savage) did stand up for himself on the homo issue on TV but another problem with that is that White Men cannot maintain their credibility with the general public. White Men are seen as the problem, the threat, and the evil among the masses. Your average Oprah watcher could never conceive of the types of things this group of people has done for humanity.

Eventually when White men are removed from doing anything in society and branded officially dangerous, then society will implode. I thinks there is lots o'money in rebuilding a society that has been destroyed by stupidheads.

Pardon my buffoonery ;)

30
posted on 03/09/2007 1:38:09 PM PST
by Domicile of Doom
(Hey boy why is there dirt in my hole? I dunno Boss.)

It can very quickly become one, with the media grooming the public to sit still for laws that ban speech that the left doesn't like.

If those laws come up, then it's a Free Speech issue. If the media expresses an opinion about something, it may be repugnant, but again, it's not a Free Speech issue. This Ann Coulter flap has absolutley nothing to do with Free Speech.

This occurred to me -- and others I suppose. So this may simply be a repeat. But without doubt it is true.

Why all the frenzy over name calling, mean-spirited rhetoric, and such?

Hillary.

They know that Hillary is dirty and they want a general agreement before the election gets going that will negate all talk of Hillary's shenanigans past, present, and future.

More proof that something is definitely up (to no good). Why else would a Clinonista (Begala?) have a new book decrying the insulting language of both sides -- even going so far as to feign disappointment with his Rat Party? I've heard interviews on the radio but I cannot remember the author.

37
posted on 03/09/2007 2:08:09 PM PST
by WilliamofCarmichael
(If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)

Supposedly, bipartisan government is a scale depended from a point won in open debate; while this may sound good in theory, what we have seen since about 1960 is an ever-increasing set of restrictions on the terms of the debate get mostly hung on the liberal side of the string until the scale has now become weighted to one side only and it turns into a dredge being dragged through the sludge.

The only reason this country hasn't become a Democrat bulldozer is that once every few years the string breaks and the swamp settles back in.

39
posted on 03/09/2007 2:09:58 PM PST
by Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)

Thanks for the pic. :) Although we've never even met, I love that gal! She's strong, independent, assertive, determined, smart, truthful, articulate, witty, charming and one downright hot babe! lol If I were 20 years younger... LOL

This is convincing proof of how the mass media can manipulate the (unthinking and unquestioning) masses to believe anything they want them to believe.

It's just another test of their waning power to control the public dialogue. Obviously, there's more than a few not falling for it -- and those are the ones who make a difference in the world -- the increasing more that can see right through them and their manipulations.

Good work, people.

It's time for them to drag out Jimmy Carter with his latest inanity -- or Helen Thomas with her latest love psalm to George Bush. Don't you just love that twist of rage that contorts liberal's faces when they are seen through as the hate- and fear-mongers they are?

Eventually, those looks become permanently embedded into their faces. (No pictures, please.)

This has nothing to do with Free Speech. Coulter isn't being prosecuted by the government. She has the right to say what she wants, and others have the right to complain, boycott, or whatever. It wasn't a Free Speech issue when Freepers boycotted the Dixie Chicks, and it isn't a Free Speech issue now.

"If those laws come up, then it's a Free Speech issue. If the media expresses an opinion about something, it may be repugnant, but again, it's not a Free Speech issue. This Ann Coulter flap has absolutley nothing to do with Free Speech."

I love ignorance parading as authority.

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.

That doesn't mean that the only limits to free speech can come from the United States government -- which is prohibited by the US Constitution from doing the same.

There are plenty of other ways in which "free speech" can be limited or punished apart from the US government -- or any government.

Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? The Hayes Code? Political correctness?

Hell yeah it's a free speech issue. Coulter's joke was about how political correctness is destroying free speech.

Call someone a schoolyard taunt, and you have to go into rehab or lose your job -- even your career.

And of course her joke has been proved highly accurate by the response it has gotten -- from boneheads like you.

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.

Well, if you look at it like that, sure. I was referring to Freedom of Speech as defined by American law, not the overall concept. Which means that it's the the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment from the government. Any other punishment - losing her job, losing her credibiliy, whatever, has nothing to do with the government. And therefore, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do with Free Speech. Again, I am looking at it from a legal point of view - otherwise, you could just as easily say that the Dixie Chicks were denied Free Speech rights by Clear Channel.

And of course her joke has been proved highly accurate by the response it has gotten -- from boneheads like you.

Nice insult. When all else fails, resort to ad hominem, huh? It's a shame you can't debate in a civilized manner, but hey, there you are. If JR decides to ban you from the forum (I didn't complain, btw) for inappropriate posting, it wouldn't be a Free Speech issue either. Maybe you can point to the response that I gave that makes her joke "proved highly accurate." How about it? Hint: She can say what she likes. People can choose to hire her if they like. The government isn't enforcing political correctness - so again, it's not a Free Speech issue.

Let us vow to buy her next book. Of course, if the DemonRATs had their way they would turn this country into the People's Republic of China and have Ann taken in for re-education--rehab--complete with shaved head like the did in the novel 1984. Then they would purge all of her writings from the public.

Even here on FR there are many who do not under stand that political correctness has stopped people from saying what they really believe for fear of losing their means to make a living.

This may be true, but it's still not a Freedom of Speech issue (as in US government). People are allowed to say anything politically incorrect they want. Employers are allowed to fire employees for not espousing the views they wish. That's the way the market works. If there are enough people out there who care about politically correct speech, and if newspapers or TV broadcasters want to pander to them, that's their right. If they want to print the politically incorrect view and risk alienating their reader/viewership, that's their right, too. Ann Coulter has no free speech issue here. She made a statement that was within her rights. Some of her employers didn't like what she said and dropped her. That's the market at work, not a Free Speech issue.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.